Search

The Supreme Court launched its October 2008 term with oral arguments in Altria v. Good, reviewing whether the federal cigarette labeling act should preempt a case arguing that a tobacco [...]

The First Circuit recently allowed a case brought by "lights" smokers against cigarette manufacturers to move forward, reversing a district court's decision. The lower court had granted the defendants' motion [...]

A Florida class action against tobacco manufacturers took a blow in May, but an individual suit in Arkansas was rewarded at trial, and the federal government had a big win, [...]

The main reason for the nearly perfect litigation record of the tobacco industry is its ability to convince the courts the the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act of 1965, as interpreted by the US Supreme Court, calls for a broad application of federal preemption. The tobacco industry has been able to persuade the courts that federal preemption provides the industry broad protection from common law causes of action. However, a proper understanding of federal preemption law reveals that the industry overstates its protection and the courts misunderstand it.

The Supreme Court is hearing arguments in Cipollone v. Liggett Group. The issue is whether the federal law mandating warning labels on cigarette packages preempts state tort suits by smokers. The Association of Trial Lawyers of America (ATLA) has written an amicus curiae brief in the case. ATLA rejects the tobacco industry's argument that preemption of state law is implied in the Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act. The tobacco industry has thus far refused to state publicly that cigarette smoking is addictive and can lead to cancer.